Re: bijection of R: R <--> Rx.....xR
- From: "Timothy Golden http://www.BandTechnology.com" <tttpppggg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 7 Sep 2005 10:21:28 -0700
Does anyone reject this method on philosophical grounds?
The digits are merely a representation of a real number,
not the real number itself. A value (a) and (b) in the reals
would seem more valid, and a function defined mathematically:
c = f ( a, b ).
This thing you guys are doing is sort of a three tape Turing solution.
Yes it works but where is the purity?
How about a swirl where
t = c
r = c d
where t is theta and r is radius.
now a = r cos t
and b = r sin t
Within a delta related to d there will be a range of c that matches for
any a and b.
If more accuracy is needed then drop d.
Does this approach work for 3D?
I don't see it.
-Tim
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: bijection of R: R <--> Rx.....xR
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: bijection of R: R <--> Rx.....xR
- From: Ittay Weiss
- Re: bijection of R: R <--> Rx.....xR
- References:
- bijection of R: R <--> Rx.....xR
- From: Timothy Golden http://www.BandTechnology.com
- Re: bijection of R: R <--> Rx.....xR
- From: Peter Webb
- Re: bijection of R: R <--> Rx.....xR
- From: David C . Ullrich
- bijection of R: R <--> Rx.....xR
- Prev by Date: Re: infinity
- Next by Date: Re: Where do mathematical ideas come from?
- Previous by thread: Re: bijection of R: R <--> Rx.....xR
- Next by thread: Re: bijection of R: R <--> Rx.....xR
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|